Talk:Narrow-gauge railway

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Narrow-gauge railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090930024735/http://www.corporate.qr.com.au/Images/QR_Annual_Report_tcm15-2468.pdf to http://www.corporate.qr.com.au/Images/QR_Annual_Report_tcm15-2468.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211074300/http://www.speedrecordclub.com/outrail.php to http://www.speedrecordclub.com/outrail.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Link to Bulgarian Wikipedia's page

https://bg.wiki.x.io/wiki/Теснолинейка_Септември_–_Добринище (The narrow-gauge railway between Septemvri and Dobrinishte (Bulgaria).)

I would add this myself, but I'm not sure it's appropriate, being a specific instance. There are some lovely photographs linked there (which are in Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Septemvri-Dobrinishte_narrow_gauge_line?uselang=bg Martha (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Martha Forsyth: There's already an English Wikipedia article about the railway, which includes many of the Commons photos. Railfan23 (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Railfan23. @Pete Forsyth: Shouldn't there be a list, SOMEWHERE (I've looked but can't find it), of the known narrow-gauge railways and articles about them? This is beyond my Wikipedia ability at the moment. A "Categories" question, probably? Martha (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

There are several. List of track gauges (linked in the article) is one way to get to them. Each continent has its own list of narrow gauge railways, eg Narrow-gauge railways in Europe, these are all linked from the bottom of the article; these link down to the country-level articles, eg British narrow-gauge railways. There are categories for the major groupings by gauge and location, eg Category:2 ft gauge railways in England, by location eg Category:Narrow gauge railways in England and there is the root category Category:Narrow gauge railways. Railfan23 (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Disadvantages and solutions section

@Ita140188: has flagged the "Disadvantages and solutions" section as disputed because "still unclear how these points are specific to narrow gauge: the first only applies wherever there are more than 1 gauge in use, while the second applies to poor quality construction, independently of gauge type". In response I'll note:

• The Interchangeability sub-section now has a citation, from a source which specifically call out break-of-gauge as a disadvantage of narrow gauge railways. Mnay more sources to this point are available A large majority of ng railways interchange with sg railways - they are after all predominantly secondary railways connecting to the main railway system, and thus require interchange of passengers and goods. This disadvantage is correctly included, in my opinion
• The Growth potential sub-section needs more sourcing, and is worthy of more scrutiny. The point is relevant to ng railways though, as they were very often built as cheaply as possible - this was a major reason for choosing narrow-gauge in the first place. So while this may not be unique to narrow gauge, it is a very common problem with them, so again worthy of note.

Further discussion is welcome, Railfan23 (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I still think these issues are not specific to narrow gauge. If we want to include them, we need to provide historical context and explanation. As a personal example to show why: I lived in Japan, where all railways (except dedicated Shinkansen tracks) are narrow gauge. Since all the country is narrow gauge, there is no problem with interchangeability, and it would be ridiculous to say that Japanese lines do not have "growth potential" since they are one of the the most used, efficient, and extensive railway systems in the world. I would imagine that problems specific to narrow gauge lines as opposed to broader gauges could be (although I am no expert) maximum weight of trains, train lateral stability, and maybe availability of specialized stock (such as high speed trains, which are mostly designed for standard gauge). What do you think? --Ita140188 (talk) 08:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that these issues are not strictly specific to narrow gauge railways - there are examples of break-of-gauge between standard and broad gauge railways. That said, the vast majority of gauge interchanges around the world (both contemporary and historic) involve at least one narrow gauge railway. So these issues commonly apply to narrow gauge railways. Even in Japan, the multiple gauges used do create problems, see Break of gauge#Japan - all of these issues involve narrow gauge railways. I don't think the problems listed in the article have to be unique to narrow gauge railways, just ones that many narrow gauge railways suffer from. I agree that adding more historical context would be useful, but that's a reason to improve the article, rather than flag is as inaccurate. Railfan23 (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Cuba 2ft 3.5in gauge

"Some sugar cane lines in Cuba were 2 ft 3+1⁄2 in (699 mm)". So far, this gauge is not known on this wikipedia. If there is a source for this, we can add this size to the Track_gauge#List_of_defined_track_gauges. -DePiep (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Was added [1] by RGCorris. -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

See this article "Sugar Cane Railways in Cuba, 2003" (PDF). RGCorris (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this a WP:RS? This would mean that Cuba has this worldwide unique gauge. Why and how would an industry order a new gauge (when importing rolling stock from US, England, and Germany)? -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I do wonder if the gauge is actually meant to be 700mm - 1.5mm wider than 27.5 inches, and equivalent to 27.5590551 inches - which would hardly be noticeable, especially once the track had seen some use. RGCorris (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Defining is the original unit (that is: the unit in which the track & stock was designed and ordered). For now I assume it was imperial not metric, because a. it was also used in UK, and b. rolling stock was ordered mainly from US and UK (from Germany minor). So we use the inches as defining unit. Millimetres are added for conversion purposes then, and I've rounded it to 699mm because doing a {{Convert}} is just supporting, not redefining. -DePiep (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, if the original design was "700 mm", then the conversioned order (for a UK/US factory) would more likely have been 700 millimetres (27+9⁄16 in) not 1⁄2. -DePiep (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

My point was, did the quoted imperial gauge in Cuba come from an enthusiast with a tape measure, or from original records from the factories ? RGCorris (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• At least one UK quarry used 2 ft 3+1⁄2 in (699 mm). This was Boon's Granite Quarries near Nuneaton.[2] I know nothing of the quarry, but they were the first customer, in 1929, for Kerr Stuart's widely-used DX-1 contractor's loco. These had a 30 hp McLaren petrol engine and the first had a Robertson CVT. They're in Webb's book, Webb, Brian (1973). The British Internal Combustion Locomotive, 1894-1940. David & Charles. p. 62. ISBN 0715361155. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Andy Dingley (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

According to Frank Jux's KS Locomotive Works List (Industrial Locomotive Society 1991) this would be KS4422 of 9/1929 "Basset Green" RGCorris (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Does it describe the gauge? I don't know why it's named Basset Green (that's nowhere near the quarry) but name is in Webb and the nameplate is visible in the linked photo. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Based on the Webb reference I have added the gauge. Someone can add the gauge and the source to Nuneaton? (IMO worth mentioning, because it is an original). -DePiep (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the word "to" should be in this sentence instead of "and"

"Many narrow gauges, from 15 in (381 mm) gauge and 4 ft 8 in (1,422 mm) gauge, are in present or former use." Appletonclack (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed,  Done. — Voice of Clam (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)